Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Commilting to the Cost of Ownership Maintenance and repair of Public Buildings Committee on Advanced Maintenance Concepts for Buildings Building Research Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1990
\ National Academy Press . 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. . Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thie; is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert ~ White are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This report was prepared as part of the technical program of the Federal Construction Council (FCC). The FCC is a continuing activity of the Building Research Board, which is a unit of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems of the National Research Council. The purpose of the FCC is to promote cooperation among federal construction agencies and between such agencies and other elements of the building community in addressing technical issues of mutual concern. The FCC program is supported by 14 federal agencies: the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Navy, the Department of State, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Endowment for the Arts. the National Science Foundation. the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Funding for the FCC program was provided through the following agreements between the indicated federal agency and the National Academy of Sciences: Department of State Contract No.1030-621218; National Endowment for the Arts Grant No. 42-4253-0091; National Science Foundation Grant No. MSM-8600676, under master agreement 82-05615; and U.S. Postal Service grant, unnumbered. Limited supplies of this document are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418. A charge of $5.00 for postage and handling must be prepaid. Printed in the United States of America
BUILDING RESEARCH BOARD (1989-1990) RICHARD T. BAUM (Chairman), Consultant, Jaros, Baum and Bolles, New York, New York LYNN S. BEEDLE, University Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering and Director, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania GERALD L. CARLISLE, Secretary-Treasurer, International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen, Washington, D.C. NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY, Consultant, Woolwich, Maine RAY F. DeBRUHL, Executive Vice President, Davidson and Jones Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina C. CHRISTOPHER DEGENHARDT, President, EDAW, Inc., San Francisco, California DAVID R. DIBNER, Vice President and Principal Architect, Sverdrup Corporation, Arlington, Virginia ELISHA C. FREEDMAN, Regional Manager, Boyer, Bennett ~ Shaw, Inc., and Executive-in-Residence, University of Hartford, Connecticut DONALD G. ISELIN, USN, Retired; Consultant, Santa Barbara, California GEORGE S. JENKINS, Consultation Networks Inc., Washington, D.C. RICHARD H. JUDY, Richard H. Judy & Associates, Inc., Miam Florida FREDERICK KRIMGOLD, Associate Dean for Research and Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alexandria, Virginia HAROLD J. PARMELEE, President, Turner Construction Company, New York, New York LESLIE E. ROBERTSON, Director, Design and Construction, Leslie E. Robertson Associates, New York, New York · · ~ At.
JAMES E. WOODS, William E. lamerson Professor of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia APRIL L. YOUNG, Senior Vice President, NVR Development, L.P., McLean, Virginia Staff - ANDREW C. LEMER, Director HENRY A. BORGER, Executive Secretary, Federal Construction Council PETER H. SMEALLIE, Executive Secretary, Public Facilities Council PATRICIA M. WHOLEY, Staff Associate JOANN V. CURRY, Senior Secretary LENA B. GRAYSON, Senior Secretary 1V
COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED MAINTENANCE CONCEPTS FOR BUILDINGS Chairman ROBERT F. JORTBERG (USN, Retired), Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin Members DONALD G. CARTER, Carter Engineering, Inc., Kensington, Maryland DAVID COTTS, Building Maintenance and Repair, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. DAVID MICHAEL CROSKERY, Engineering Department, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Newark, Delaware VIVIAN LOFTNESS, Department of Architecture, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania JOHN H. MYERS, Department of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta DENNIS O'LEARY, Commissioner of Maintenance and Construction Department, City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada HARRY STEVENS, JR., Albany, New York THOMAS E. WIGGINS, Hanscomb Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia Federal Construction Council Liaison Representatives STEVE BEATTY, Facilities Management Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D.C. THOMAS BEDICK, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Public Health Service, Jefferson, Arkansas WILLIAM G. ESCHMANN II, Office of Management Equipment, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C. v
DENIS J. FECK, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DENNIS FIRMAN, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida WILLIAM GRAHAM, Office of Facilities, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. HARLAN HEFNER, Facilities Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, Virginia DANIEL L. HIGHTOWER, Division of Health Facilities Planning, U.S. Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland JOHN IACONIS, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. JOHN JENKINS, Facilities Engineering Branch, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland ERIC LAWSON, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois TONY C. LIU, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. JAMES G. PALMBORG, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D.C. JESSE F. SINTES, Department of Facility Management, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland KURT SISSON, Facilities Operations and Maintenance Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C. DONALD UZARSKI, U.S. Army Construction Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois Public Facilities Council Liaison Representatives Engineering RICHARD BLAES, Department of Facilities and Services, Montgomery County, Maryland SPEROS FLEGGAS, North Carolina State Construction Office, Raleigh PAUL POSTON, Division of Capital Planning and Operations, State of Massachusetts, Boston THOR WORONCZUK, Division of Properties and Facilities Management, State of New Jersey, Trenton American Public Works Association RITA KNORR, American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois V1
Association of Physical Plant Administrators WAYNE LEROY, Association of Physical Plant Administrators, Alexandria, Virginia Protect Staff ANDREW C. LEMER PETER H. SMEALLIE PATRICIA WHOLEY JOANN CURRY · - V11
PREFACE Dig a well before you are thirsty. Chinese proverb Maintenance of buildings and other constructed facilities-- an important part of our national assets--demonstrates confi- dence in the future and recognition of the investment made by preceding generations for the sake of their children. The closing decade of the 20th century finds us beset by many indications that public policy is failing, either by conscious decision or insufficient foresight, to protect the value of these assets. Some observers write of "America in ruins" and describe the "fragile foundations" upon which our economic prosperity rests. Alarming characterizations of the condition of our schools, other public buildings, and transportation systems abound, seemingly with good reason. Credible analyses indicate that we are syste- matically neglecting the maintenance of public facilities at all levels of government. We are spending our assets and wasting our inheritance. The earliest signs of neglect are often subtle and escape the notice of those unprepared by training or experience to recognize them. Herein lies a major element of the problem: It is difficult, in times of tight budgets and competing demands for public re- sources, to convince those responsible for public policy that neg- lect can lead to losses. We seem to need a disaster to focus our attention and motivate action. Yet we and the committee whose deliberations are the basis for this report subscribe to the wisdom of the Chinese proverb. We argue not that disaster is upon us but that our experience demonstrates that greater commitment is needed if disaster is to be avoided. We hope that our work will enhance this commit- ment. Robert F. Jortberg, Chairman, Committee on Advanced Maintenance Concepts for Buildings Andrew C. Lemer, Director Building Research Board 1X
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The nation's public buildings--government administration buildings, health care facilities, schools, correctional facilities, and a variety of other elements of public infrastructure--are assets acquired through the investment of tax dollars over the years and are critical to the nation's high quality of life and productive environment. Public officials, the stewards of these assets, must bear responsibility for their effective maintenance. Widespread underfunding of maintenance of public facilities, caused by many factors, can affect public health and safety, re- duce productivity of public employees, and cause long-term financial losses when buildings must be prematurely renewed or replaced. This document is the report of a committee asked by the Building Research Board to undertake a broad review of main- tenance and repair activities of government agencies and to recommend how these activities might be improved. Based on its own review of available information, consideration of reports by agency personnel and other professionals, and the experience of its members, the committee is troubled. The procedures and allocations of resources for managing the public's built assets-- influenced by a variety of financial and political pressures as well as technical requirements--are failing to protect these assets, and the potential costs of correcting past neglect are measured in billions of dollars. (See Chapter 2.) These procedures and alloca- tions must be changed to recognize the full costs of ownership of these assets and to support appropriate maintenance activities. The committee hopes that its findings and recommendations will help to bring about these changes: 1. Underfunding is a widespread and persistent problem that undermines maintenance and repair (M&R) of public buildings. To overcome this problem, M&R budgets should be structured to identify explicitly the expenditures associated with routine M&R X1
requirements and activities to reduce the backlog of deferred deficiencies. An appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R for a substantial inventory of facilities will typically be in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement value of those facilities (excluding land and major associated infrastructure). In the absence of specific information upon which to base the M&R budget, this funding level should be used as an absolute minimum value. Where neglect of maintenance has caused a backlog of needed repairs to accumulate, spending must exceed this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated. (See Chapter 3.) 2. Periodic condition assessment is an essential step in effective facilities management. Formal condition assessment programs should be implemented by agencies responsible for M&R budgets. These programs will initially serve as the basis for establishing appropriate levels of funding required to reduce and eventually eliminate backlog. Once backlog is eliminated and a steady-state performance is achieved, the condition assessment becomes a management tool for monitoring the effectiveness of M&R activities. Condition assessment programs require trained technicians and managers and should be standardized to control their cost and to ensure consistency of the results. Federal agencies and other owners and users of large inventories of build- ings should undertake to establish guidelines for such programs. (See Chapter 4.) 3. While adequate M&R funding based on recognition of the full costs of ownership is a prerequisite for protection of the public's assets, effective maintenance management is also re- quired to realize the full benefit of the funds made available. Agencies should make specific assignments of responsibility for M&R to qualified and trained staff and managers. Activities such as minor alterations and improvements that may be disguised as M&R should be clearly identified and not permitted to divert resources from legitimate M&R functions. Education, training, and recognition of staff members responsible for M&R are needed, along with firm commitment to effective management of our built assets. (See Chapter 5.) · ~ X11
CONTENTS 1. Introduction . Source of this study, 3 The study committee and its work, 4 Work yet to be done, 5 Key definitions, 5 2. Causes, Consequences, and Scale of Neglect ..... Physical and management causes of neglect, 9 Consequences of neglect, 10 Scale of the problem, 13 Approaches to solving the problem, 13 3. The Maintenance and Repair Component of the Cost of Ownership.................................... 4. Condition Assessment as a Maintenance Management Tool . e ~ · e Scope and initial survey, 21 Diagnostic interpretation, 22 Effective use of condition assessment, 23 Guidelines for assessment, 24 5. Maintenance Management . . Cost accounting structures, 25 Staff resources, 26 Management commitment, 26 Appendixes A. Biographical Sketches of Committee Members, 29 B. APWA Proposal on Life-Cycle Analysis of Building Maintenance Costs, 33 Condition Assessment Examples, 35 · · - x~ 9 17 21 25